![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Dave:
If you feel that group was rogue, please explain. If you do not, what is the basis for your view that its considerations were sufficiently faulty to warrant being overridden?Prior to the appeal, this aspect of John's rationale was not raised. It was not raised by John, the document PROTO shepherd, or the IESG member sponsoring the document.Again, I hope we do not find ourselves in a he said/no he didn't exchange. I'll merely suggest that had the Discuss been immediately taken to the public mailinglist, it seems pretty likely that salient details would quickly have been put forward.
This is an individual submission, not a WG document. So, there is no charter that lists the appropriate mail list for such a discussion. That said, John did take the issue to a mail list. I know this because someone forward his posting to me. John did not CC me on the posting, which I interpret as not seeking dialogue at that point.
Russ
_______________________________________________ IETF mailing list IETF at ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Note Well: Messages sent to this mailing list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.